CHIN-LU:"G \\'EI SWEET BURDENS: PERCEPTIO~S OF FOREIG~－lλl'\GUAGE MAJORS ABOUT PEER REVIEWS 1

SWEET BURDENS: PERCEPTIONS OF FOREIGN-LANGUAGE

MAJORS ABOUT PEER REVIEWS-.

CHIN-LUNG WEI

Abstract

The pu中ose of the present study was to investigate Taiwanese EFL un.der­

graduates ’ reflections on peer-review tasks. An intact class with 29 foreign­

language m吋ors of a college Sophomore English Composition course was selected as

the SU吋ects. After one-semester’s implementation of the peer-review technique,

questionnaire and reflection papers were used to collect data. Descriptive statistics

and content analysis methods were used to analyze the data.

It was found that most students indicated that the peer-review tasks helped

improve writing. They also suggested that peer reviews were beneficial for

improving interpersonal relationships, communicative competence, oral/aural abilities,

and independent thinking. Their attitudes towards peer reviews were generally

positive. The problems that emerged in the students' comments were the suspicions

of peers’ capabilities, the lack of active pa而cipation, and students’ beliefs in

authority人 Finally, the present study recommends further research on more non­

foreign-language majors and testing the effects of peer reviews on different drafts of

an article.

Key words: Peer Reviews, English W丘ting, TESOL

This is the first phase report of a project granted by National Science Council. I wish to express my

sincere appreciation to the Council.

· Associate Professor, Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, Taichung Evening

School, National Chung-H血g U到.versity.

與大台中夜間部學報（Journal of Taichung Evening School. NCHU). Vol. H1995), 129-148

2 興大台中夜間部學報

1. The Problem

Although most students in Taiwan spend more than six years studying English,

according to Shih, few of them are able to master the language (313 ” 17). Judging

from the results of Joint Entrance Examination for Colleges, people can easily

discover that most students' English writing scores are not high. Taiwanιs students

are generally not confident of their English writing competence. Actually, the

instruction of English writing has received more attention in senior high schools since

English composition was included into the Joint Entrance Examination for colleges in

1981. However, the teaching and learning of writing English were always

considered a nightmare by both instructors and learners. Many factors can be

attributed to the problem though, the crucial causes are considered to be the large

class size and shortage of teacher training. Average class size of over forty or fifty

and teachers' lack proficiency in composition have made teaching of writing

superficial and ineffective. Many instructional strategies have been introduced and

adopted to facilitate EFL w丘ting instruction though, the grammar translation method

and teacher-centered philosophy st_ill dominate most EFL classes in Taiwanese

schools. Grammar explanation and sentence analysis are the most-seen activities

during writing practices. In addition, under a centralized educational system and

competitive learning environment, teachers of English are traditionally regarded as

the authority of the subject and should be trusted. Students are conditioned to be

more obedient and passive. They tend to be more isolated and defensive learners.

A typical English writing class in Taiwan is generally a monotonous routine: First,

the teacher assigns a topic for the whole class and the students individually write their

own articles at home or in the class; then, the teacher correct or grade students' drafts,

focusing mainly on grammar/sentence patterns; finally, after browsing the grade or

comments on the returned paper, the students file it or throw it in the garbage can.

Peer review had been suggested as a useful and valuable instructional activity for

enhancing students' communication and composition abilities in English.

According to Mitt凹，”the peer review process a useful method to focus on students'

existing communicative powers and to show them how to extend those abilities in

their writing" (208). In Mangelsdorf’s study, she discovers that "peer reviews can

~ 130~

CHI~－LU:";G \\1三ISWEET BURDENS: PERCEmo~s OF FOREIG!\-L也~GUAGE MAJORS ABOt:寸 PEER REVIEWS 3

be helpful to students during the drafting process”(274). Mendonca and Johnson

also conclude that “peer reviews are a valuable form of feedback in L2 writing

instruction'’(767). In an informal study, Kao indicates that 78% of the subjects

considered peer review a helpful process for their writing (49-64). It is reasonable to

believe that peer review could be an appropriate instructional strategy for Taiwanese

EFL writing classes. Nevertheless, there was a pove口y of comprehensive

information about how Taiwanese EFL learners perceived peer reviews. It is

worthwhile to conduct more profound research to explore Taiwanese students'

perceptions about this instructional technique. Without this knowledge, it is

difficult to make instructional recommendations on a rational basis. 百1erefore,

research is needed to investigate more Taiwanese EFL students' reflections on peer­

review tasks.

2. The Focus

The peer review process in the present study means that ”students read drafts of

their fellow students' essays in order to make suggestions for revision" (Mangelsdorf

274). To fulfill the pu中ose mentioned previously, the present study addressed the

following questions:

1) What are the strengths and limitations of the peer review process perceived by

Taiwanese college EFL students?

2) What are Taiwanese college EFL learnersεattitudes towards the peer review

process?

3. Delimitations

The scope of the present study was delimited to the following:

1) One aspect of the EFL composition instructional techniques was studied--the peer

review process.

2) The inquiry was confined to college EFL students majoring in foreign languages

and literature.

3) Restricted to the feasibili可 and practicability of the present study, the inquiry was

limited to selecting students from one intact English composition class as the

~ 131~

4 興大台中在間都學報

subjects.

4) The findings of the present study were restricted to the replies of those respondents

who returned the questionnaires and the reflection papers.

5) The respondents were limited to the choices available on the questionnaires,

although there was one open-ended question.

6) The present study was descriptive rather than evaluative; therefore, no evaluative

criteria were established.

4. Methodology

Questionnaire and written reflection papers were used to collect data for the

present study. The subjects, instrument, instructional design, and data analysis are

described in the following:

4.1. The Subjects

The subjects for the present study were the 29 students of an intact sophomore

English composition class. No random sampling was conducted. These subjects

were students of Department of Foreign Languages 紅id Literature at a university

evening school in the central part of Taiwan. Although their major was foreign

languages, English was traditionally designed as the primary foreign language for the

curriculum and English was officially considered as a foreign language. Both

freshmen and sophomores in the Department are required to take English composition

courses. They need to pass the' Freshman English Composition course before they

take Sophomore English Composition.

4.2. The Instrument

In order to obtain more specific and objective data, a questionnaire with 27

statements and one open-ended question was generated by the researcher on the basis

of Mangelsdorf’s study. Prior to being circulated, the questionnaire was submitted

to the same participants for pilot testing. Based on their suggestions, a revised

version of questionnaire was created for the present study (See Appendix A). After

one-semester’s peer review processes, the subjects were requested to carefully read

~ 132~

CHIN-LCNG \VE! SWEET BURDENS: PERCEP"口o~s OF FOREIGN-LANGUAGE MAJORS ABOUT PEER REVIEWS .::i

the questionnaire and decided whether they agreed with, disagreed with, or weren’t sure about each statement based on their one-semester’s experiences with peer-review

tasks. The open-ended question asked students to write down their comments on

peer reviews. In addition, an assignment was also made at the end of the semester to

have the students write a reflection paper on the peer-review tasks in an unstructured,

comprehensive, and open-ended way to obtain more profound data.

4.3. The Instructional Design

The Sophomore English Composition offered by the Department is a t\vo-credit

course. Class was scheduled to meet two successive hours each week. For the

present study, the peer-review technique was applied to the course for one semester.

In order to produce marked effects, the whole semester was arranged in several cycles

of three weeks for the peer review activities. Within each cycle of the three weeks,

the students worked on the very same topic they picked. Each essay needed to be

written and revised three times through peer-review processes in three class meetings.

甘1e original and revised drafts were turned in for grading each week. In total,

except for holidays and examinations, five cycles/essays were proceeded during the

semester. The instructional procedures were divided into demonstration and three

draftings:

4.3.1. Demonstration

Since the subjects were not familiar with and not used to the peer-review

processes for English writing, a demonstration was given at the first meeting of the

course. The instructor first distributed a sample essay, a peer-review sheet (See

Appendix B), and a sheet of checking guidelines (See Appendix C) to each student

and explained how to make the most use of the review sheet and the guidelines to

facilitate the review tasks. He also introduced the general components of a piece of

writing--content, form, grammar, style, and mechanics--to strengthen the srudents'

knowledge of English composition. Then, the whole class practiced together. The

instructor, acting as the chairperson, guided the students to go over e訂ors in the

sample essay and suggestions made by the students. The students were then divided

~ 133~

6 興大台中在間部畢報

into several study groups with five to six members in each to experience the peer

review processes follov.社ng the instructor's demonstration.

4.3.2. The First Drafting

During the first meeting of a cycle, a brainstorming activity was first performed.

Students organized their own study groups with five to six members in each. They

could express their ideas openly and request suggestions from their group members,

but they needed to decide their own topic and outline. As long as they felt they were

ready to compose, they started to write the first draft by themselves. They were free

to consult any tool books or asked for help from classmates or instructor. After they

finished the first drafts, they picked a reviewer from the study group and exchanged

their drafts for reviewing. Every student was a reviewer for someone else. No two

or more students shared the same reviewer. They were requested to do the review

tasks and fill in the peer-review sheet after class before next meeting.

4.3.3. The Second Drafting

During the second meeting of a cycle, the students exchanged peer-review sheets

with the reviewer they picked in the first meeting, discussed with their peers about

their first drafts, and requested opinions for revision. After the discussion, they

turned in a photocopy of the first draft along with the peer-review sheet written by the

reviewer for grading and began to write the second draft based on the first one and

their peer’s suggestions. They selected a different reviewer to exchange their second

drafts for the second peer review tasks. Similarly, they needed to finish the second

peer review tasks at home before next meeting.

4.3.4. The Final Drafting

During the third meeting of a cycle, the students did the same tasks executed in

the second meeting, but with a different revi巳wer they had chosen. Based on the

second draft and new reviewer's comments, they could finish the final drafts either

during the class period or at home. They were required to tum in their final drafts at

the beginning of the next cycle.

~ 134~

CHN-LIJ'.':G WEI SWEET BCRDENS: PERCEPTIO:'\S OF FOREIGN-lA'\GUAGE MAJORS ABOUT PEER REVIEWS 7

Although students were allowed to use the English and native languages as the

media of discussion, English was strongly encouraged. During the peer review

processes, the instructor occasionally walked around the classroom to observe and

evaluate students' performance and to pro吋de help whenever it was needed.

Learners’ grades were based on all the drafts they composed and the overall

performance of the peer review tasks. Each draft was checked and graded following

the scoring guide recommended by Lin and others (597). The peer-review

perfoπnances were assessed on the bases of the comments filled in the peer-review

sheet, suggestions written on their peers’ drafts, and the tasks they performed in the

class meetings.

4.4. Data Collection and Analysis

After one-semester’s peer-review tasks, students were requested to fill out a

questionnaire anonymously and write a reflection paper on the course. The

instruction for writing the paper was:”Please look back to see what you have been

through in Sophomore English Composition course and write an essay on it."

The analysis of these data was processed in two procedures. Firstly, the data

for the 27 objective statements were quantified with descriptive statistics by using the

SAS computer software and presented in the form of tables. Secondly, the answers

for the open-ended question and the written reflections were analyzed by using

content analysis method. The analyses \Vere focused primarily on both the positive

effects and the problems students perceived about the peer review tasks.

5. Results

Data collection terminated at the end of the Fall semester in 1994. The results

and implications are presented in two sections: responses to the questionnaire and

elicited written reflections.

5.1. Responses to the Questionnaire

Data drawn from the responses to the 27-statement questionnaire were collected,

recorded, and quantified with descriptive sta討sties. The results are presented in

~ 135~

8 興六台中夜間部學報

tables to facilitate reading and understanding. Percentages are rounded to whole

numbers in the tables. The percentages are followed by frequencies (in parentheses)

for each table. The format for the presentation of data follows a sequence of content,

organization/style, grammar/mechanics, and comments.

5.1.1. Content

Students' responses to the components relevant to the content of

compositions are presented in Table 1. Eighty percent or more of the students

agreed that peer-review tasks helped clarify ideas (80% ), give different views on topic

(86% ), and develop ideas (869巴）. Seventy percent or more of the respondents agreed

that peer-review tasks helped with focus (72%), giving new ideas (70%), improving

thesis (70% ), and deleting unnecessary statements (79% ). About sixty percent (59%)

of the students agreed that peer-review tasks helped in keeping audience interest.

On average, 75% of the students agreed that peer-review tasks helped improving

content and 24% disagreed. The results suggest that most students assured that peer­

review tasks were useful for improving the substance of the writing and the ideas

expressed.

Table 1 Percentages of responses to the content categories (N=2月

Helps clarify ideas Helps give different views on topic Helps develop ideas Helps give new ideas Helps with focus Helps in keeping audience interest Helps improve thesis Helps delete unnecessary statements

5.1.2. Organization/Style

Agree Disagree Not Sure

80% (2月86% (2月86% (2月70% (20) 72% (21) 599忘（17)

709毛（20)

79% (2月

17% (5) 14% (4) 14% (4) 30% (9) 28% (8) 41 % (12) 30% (9) 21% (6)

3% (1)

Students' responses to the components relevant to the form and the style of

compositions are presented in Table 2. About eighty percent (79%) of the students

~ 136~

CHI:-1-Lli~G WEI SWEET BURDENS: PERCEmo:-.:s OF FORE!Gl'-LA.NGUAGE MAJORS ABOUT PEER REVIEWS 9

agreed that peer-review tasks helped improve organization and 21 % disagreed.

Around six可 percent (59%) of the respondents agreed that peer-review tasks helped

improve title and 41 % disagreed. About forty percent (41 %) of the students agreed

that peer-review tasks helped improve transitions and 59% disagreed. Thirty percent

of the respondents agreed that peer-review tasks helped improve style and seventy

disagreed. On the whole, more than 60位 of the students agreed that peer-review

tasks helped improve the form and title of compositions. However, more than half

of the students disagreed that peer-review tasks helped improve the transitions and

style. The results suggest that most students suppo口ed that peer-review tasks were

useful for improving the title and organ泣ation of a composition, but not so helpful for

improving transitions and style. This may imply that the transitions and the s叮r}e of

a composition were the most difficult components for most students to comment on

and deal with in peer review processes.

Table 2 Percentages of responses to the organization/style categories (N=2月

Agree Disagree Not Sure

Helps improve organization 79% (2月 21% (6) Helps improve title 59% (17) 41 % (12) Helps improve transitions 41 % (12) 59% (17) Helps improve style 30% (9) 70% (20)

5.1.3. Grammar/Mechanics

Students' responses to the components relevant to the grammar and the

mechanics of compositions are presented 詛 Table 3. More than eighty percent (83%)

of the students agreed that peer-review tasks helped with grammar and improving

mistakes and 17% disagreed. About eigh可 percent (79%) of the students agreed

that peer-review tasks helped improve spelling and 21 % disagreed. On the whole,

more than about 80% of the students agreed 由at peer-review tasks helped improving

the employment of grammatical forms and mechanics. The results suggest that most

students approved that peer-review tasks were useful for enhancing the usage of

syntactic patterns and the use of the graphic convention of English in their w討ting.

~ 137~

10 興大台中夜間部學報

This may imply that grammatical and mechanic errors were the easiest for students to

identify and handle.

Table 3 Percentages of responses to the grammar/mechanics categories (N=2月

Helps with grammar Helps improve mistakes Helps improve spelling

5.1.4. Comments

Agree

83% (24) 83% (24) 79% (23)

Disagree

17% (5) 17% (5) 21 % (6)

Not Sure

The results of students' comments on peer-review tasks are presented in

Table 4. More than ninety percent of the students agreed that peers’ drafts

were readable (93%) and that they liked to be criticized (97% ). More than

seventy percent of the students agreed that pee時， criticism could be trusted

(73% ), that they liked criticizing peers (79% ), peer-review tasks helped writer

be more critical (83% ), and that peer-review tasks made it easy to relate to

another student’s comments (76%). More than half of the respondents agreed

that they were confident of being a reviewer (55%), that time was enough in

class (66% ), that peer's drafts served as models (66% ), and that reviewers told

them to change positions (57%). More than seventy percent of the students

(72%) disagreed that peers’ critics were apathetic. Less than half of the

SU吋ects (38%) agreed that peers’ written comments were specific. On the

whole, more than half of the students' remarks on peer reviews were positive.

The only complaint about peer reviews was that the comments on the review

sheets written by the peers were not specific. The results suggest that most

students' attitudes toward peer-review tasks were positive. Most of the

respondents expected that their peers’ comments could be more specific.

~ 138~

CHIN-LU!\G WEI SWEET BURDENS: PERCEPTIOl'\S OF FOREIG;-o;-LA "-'GU AGE MAJORS ABOUT PEER REVIEWS 11

Table 4 Percentages of responses 扭曲e comment 白白gories (N=2月

Agree Disagree Not Sure

Student criticism can be trusted 73% (21) 21 % (6) 6早已（2)Student critics are apathetic 28% (8) 72% (21) Written comments are specific 38位（11) 59% (17) Time is enough in class 66% (1月 34% (10) Drafts are readable 的呢（2乃 7% (2) Confident of being a reviewer 55位（16) 45% (13) Likes criticizing peers 79% (2月 21% (6) Likes being criticized 97位（28) 3% (1) Helps writer be more critical 83% (24) 17% (5) Peers' drafts serve as models 66% (1月 28% (8) 6% (2) Makes it easy to relate to

another student’s comments 76% (22) 24% （乃Reviewers tell me to change my position 59% (17) 41 % (12)

5.2. Elicited Written Reflections

Written reflections and replies to the open-ended question of the questionnaire

were either positive or negative. On the whole, most of the students indicated that

the peer-review experience led to both improving writing and increasing creativity

and critical thinking. Their attitudes toward peer reviews were positive. These

data generally correspond with the results found from the responses to the 27

statements on the questionnaire. One student suggested that peer-review tasks

improved her English writing ”both in quanti可 and quality". Although, in the

beginning, some students were not used to the peer-review tasks and felt nervous and

burdensome, they changed their mind’ sets little by little. In the end, one student

reflected that the peer-review tasks were ”sweet burdens”. English writing became a

high rewarding task because of the abundant feedback 企om peers. Further, English

composition was no longer a nightmare to some students. τ'heir v.寸iting

apprehension was lessened. Some began to like English composi丘on more. Tool

books, such as dictionaries and grammar texts, were consulted more frequently and

more efficiently. Moreover, some students indicated that peer-review tasks were

good for improving interpersonal relationships, English oral and aural abilities, and

~ 139~

12 興大台中在間部學報

communicative competence. Some believed that cooperation was an important

factor for effective learning. Peer-review tasks were also considered beneficial for

independent thinking, self-esteem, and self-education.

Three problems that emerged in the students' comments were the suspicions of

peers’ capabilities, the lack of active participation, and students' beliefs in authority.

These are actually the issues resulted from the traditional, teacher-centered teaching

culture in Taiwan. These issues can lead to an important but painful learning

experience for the students who are not aware of the adverse effects of old learning

habits.

6. Conclusion and Recommendation

Most subjects for the present study positively reflected the effects of the peer

reviews on their English draftings. This finding appears to be consistent with the

research literature. Most of the participants felt more comfortable and easier to deal

with the components of grammar, mechanics, content, and organization in an article.

The peer review process represents one of many possible techniques for the teaching

of English writing. It is practical and helpful because it is flexible and relatively

lively, while embodying a philosophy of English writing instruction that affirms the

creativity, critical thinking, and communicative competence of the learners. Peer

reviews are designed to give the control of learning back to the students, so that they

become actively involved in choosing what and how to write and share. It is

earnestly recommended that EFL teachers in Taiwan can make the best use of this

technique to empower students' writing ability.

There are some problems with peer reviews for Taiwanese EFL undergraduates.

Transitions and style were reflected as the difficulties in peer reviews. Most

students also anticipated more specific comments and suggestions from their

reviewers. Other problems primarily surround issues of traditional learning styles or

habits--passive learning, isolated learning, defensive learning, and authority trusting.

However, to change students' stereotyped mind-sets is a long-term job. Judging

from the significant changes of most su吋ec阻， the present study suggests that

students' attitudes are gradually molded in the long run. Teachers should be

~ 140~

am、九Ll.i~G WEI SWEET BURDENS: PERCEPTIONS OF FOREIGN-I..屯NGUAGE MAJORS ABOUT PEER REVIEWS 13

persistent with this effective technique from the beginning to the \iery ~nd. In order

to make the best effects of peer reviews, teachers are recommenq ed tp bt: more open,

fortitude, and patient while implementing. Peer reviews are cefiniteh' a novelty to

students who are used to teacher-centered and authorit）叫rusted culture. Suspicions

and complaints about the change can surely be heard eve可 now and t~ 扭， especially

at the beginning of the implementation. Some students distrusted and rejected

peer's comments. Some students were used to teacher-directed activities. Some

misunderstood that the instructor was t可ing to be lazy during the class meetings.

Therefore, instructors must be insistent on 由e innovation, patient m吐th helping

student, and willing to accept any constructive opinions such as re-organizing study

group every month and giving more time for whole class discussion. Teacher­

student conference can be a helpful way to dispel possible o吋ections or

misunderstandings.

As the delimitations mentioned above, the subjects were confined to college

foreign-language majors. 百le small sample size and the participation of only

advanced EFL learners constrain the extent to which the findings of the present study

can be generalized. Further studies are recommended to select a broader sample of

SU句ects from EFL learners other than English majors, such as adults, high school

students, or college non-English majors. Moreover, although most subjects for the

present study reflected that peer reviews were helpful for their English composition, it

is worthwhile to conduct an empirical study to test whether there is a significant

di叮叮ence between two drafts through peer-review tasks.

~ 141~

14 興大台中在間都學報

\Vorks Cited

Kao, S. 扎1.

Appli臼tion to the University English Composition Course Design." 旦控空墊且1世主哩哇位i:i些空空£＿e旦旦§！gli些巨型£！！！盟 and Leami!l:.g in the Republic of China. Ed. W. P. Li, Y. M. Yin, H. H. Chang, B. I. Lin, and C. Y. Lin. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd., 1992. 49-64. [In Chinese]

Lin, H. R., Huan臣， T. 且， Lin, C. Y., and Chen, K. T. “English Composition Topic Assignment and Grading.” 些世且主旦旦些 Tenth Con些ence on Engr哩~~£！！~i:ig 哩月丕空中i~g﹞旦旦1些_g哩旦啞巴t~.缸里﹒ Ed. W. P. Li, Y. M. Yin, H. H. Chang, B. I. Lin, and C. Y. Lin. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd., 1992. 577-610. [In Chinese]

Mangelsdorf, K. “Peer Reviews in the ESL Composition Classroom: What do the Students Think?” ELT 46.3 (1992): 274-84.

Mendonca, C. 0. and Johnson, K. E. “Peer Review Negotiations: Revision Activities in ESL Writing Instruction." I堅堅L旦旦！！空!:!Y 28.4 (1994): 745-69.

Mittan, R,“The Peer Review Process: Harnessing Students' Communicative Power. ’, 型E坦~~s.！旦F._E主控g_~型22_~~盟 ESL Students. Ed. Donna M. Johnson and Duane H. Rosen New York: Longman, 1989. 207-19.

Shih, Y. H. Overview. fil'~<lQ!盟主生~hinese·Tea.~壁壘﹒ Vol. 1. By Shih. Ed. F. F. Tsao, T. S. Huang, Y. H. Shih, and T. L. Huang. Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co ’, Ltd., 1980. 313-317.

~ 142~

15 CHIN-LUNG \VEI

S＼＼吧ET BURDENS: PERCEPTIO'."S OF FOREIG~－L心右UAGE MAJORS ABOUT PEER RE盯EWS

Questionnaire

Please read each of the following statements (1-27) carefully. If you agree, check or circle the ”A ’,.

If you disagree, check or circle the ”D ’ ,.

If you are not sure, check or circle the "N".

Appendix A

1. Peer-review task helps clari方 i自由．

2. Peer-review task helps give different vie\i;,·s on topic. 3. Peer-review task helps develop ideas. 4. Peer-review task helps give new ideas. 5. Peer-review task helps with focus. 6. Peer-review task helps in keeping audience interest. 7. Peer-review task helps improve thesis. 8. Peer-review task helps delete unnecessary statements. 9. Peer-review task helps improve organization.

10. Peer-review task helps improve mistakes. 11. Peer-review task helps improve spelling. 12. Peer-review task helps improve title. 13. Peer-review task helps improve transitions. 14. Peer-review task helps improve style. 15. Peer-review task helps w討ter be more critical. 16. Peers' drafts serve as models in peer-review task. 17. Peer-review task makes it easv to relate to another student’s

com口1ems.

18. Student criticism can be trusted in peer-review task. 19. Student critics are apathetic in peer-review t臼k.

20. Written comments are specific in peer-revie'v task. 21. Reviewers can help with grammar in peer-review task. 22. Reviewers tell me to change my position. 23. Time is enough in class for peer-review task. 24. Student drafts are readable. 25. I am confident of being a reviewer. 26. I like criticizing peers. 27. I like being criticized by peers.

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

NNNNNNNNNN

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DDDDDDDDDD

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAA

*** If any, please write down more comments on peer-revie\v tasks in general (either positive or negative).

~ 143~

16 興大台中夜間部學報

Appendix B Peer Review Sheet (From Mittan, R .. The Peer Review Process, 1989, p.216)

Draft written bv Review 仇·ritten bv

Your purpose in answering these questions is to provide an honest and helpful response to your partner ‘s draft and to suggest ways to make his/her writing better. Before beginning your review, be sure to read the writing carefully. After you have done that, respond to each of the following questions. Be as specific as possible; refer din了crly to your partner ‘s paper by paragraph number.

1. What do you like most about your partner's writing? Choose the most interesting idea and EXPLAIN WHY it captured your attention.

2. In your own words, state what you think your partner’s focus is. What is your partner trying to explain to readers?

3. How helpful and informative will this paper be for readers who want to visit your partner's culture? Which parts need to be developed with more detail so that the readers can understand these kinds of communication?

4. Choose the response that you agree with: Each of your paragraphs discusses only one idea and everything in

it is relat芯d to that topic. Some of your paragraphs are confusing because they seem to be

about more than one idea. I marked them with an X. Your writing seems to be all in one paragraph. I can’t tell where

you start discussing a new idea. Please help!

5. On the back of this page, write a short letter to your partner explaining how his or her writing can be improved. BE VERY SPECIFIC and explain why you think these changes will be helpful to the reader. Be sure to sign your letter.

~ 144~

CT~ ！S-LC:-..G WEI SWEET BCRDE!'\S: PERCE阿101'\S OF FORI kj:'\-LA.V·l 圳、1.6,JORS ABOLT PEER RE\"IEWS lJ

Appendix C Composition Checklist

I. CONTENT/ORGANIZATION

L Is there an introductory paragraph?

2. Does the introductory paragraph end with a thesis statement?

3. Are there at least two supporting paragraphs？一一

4. Does each paragraph begin with a topic sentence?

5. Is the information in each paragraph related to the topic of the paragraph'?

6. Does the essay have a conclusion?

7. Does the conclusion include the main points of the essay?

II.GRAMMAR

1. Do verbs agree with their subjects?

2. Are the verb forms (past, present, future, etc.) used correctly?

3. Does every sentence have a su吋ect, verb, and an object (if necessary)?

4. Are plural nouns pluralized with 's' or ＇前，？

5. Are articles (a, an, the) used correctly？一一

6.Do a句ectives come before the nouns they modify?

7. Are other rules of grammar used co訂ectly?

III. MECHANICS

1. Are all paragraphs indented?

2. Do all sentences end with periods or question marks?

3. Do all senten臼s begin with capitals?

4. What about other punctuation: commas, quotation marks, apostrophes, etc.?

~ 145~

18 興大台中在間部舉報

5. What about other capitalization: city-names, country-names, etc.?

6. Are words correctly spelled?

IV. FOR孔f

1. Is the hand-writing clear and easy to read?

2. Does the essay have margins on all four sides?

3. Does the writing begin on the third line of the paper?

4. Is the name, date, etc. in the upper right-hand corner?

5. Are all mistakes erased (or whited-out) so that no crossed-out words or words

written above others appear in the paper？一一一

6. Does the paper have a generally neat appearance?

~ 146~

CHI:-l~LU~G \VE! SWEET BURDENS; PERCEPTIO!'\S OF FOREIG!'\-IA.'\GUAGE MAJORS ABOUT PEER REVIEWS 19

甜美的負擔：外文系學生對同儕評稿的看法＊

韋金龍n

摘要

本研究的目的是調查臺灣外文系學生封閉儕評稿封態度。 29 名康建制、外

文系二年級英文作丈課的學生被選作調查對對象，經過一學需使用向儕評稿進

行英文作文教學活動後，以問卷及思想書寫東蒐集資料，再以謊言于及內容分析法

來分析學生的反應資料。

結果發現多數學生認為同儕評稿可以攻進芸丈作丈，也覺得問儕評稿對改

善人際關係、溝通能力、英語聽講能力、及獨立思考有酌盎司一盤說來，他們對

同儕評稿教學活動是持正面的看法－少數學生提出三個可能影響閏儕評稿吱殼

的疑慮：同儕的評稿能力、同學漠不關心的態度、及學生過於迷信權成前習置﹔

本研究建議選取更多非外文系學生作進一步探討研究 z

關鍵詞：同儕評稿、英文作文、英語教學

＊本研究報告團團科會贊助計畫之第一部份，特別向宮會致甜。

制圖立中興大學台中在聞部外國語文學系副敢擅

~ 147~